FOOD4SUSTAINABILITY Collective action for sustainable food systems in a changing climate: assessing social experimentations and policy innovations T. DEDEURWAERDERE (1) , O. DE SCHUTTER (1) , E. MATHIJS (2) , M. HUDON (3) , S. BUI (1) , I. DA COSTA (1) , A. DIPIERRI (3) , P. FERNANDEZ-WULFF (1) , H. JOACHAIN (3) , T. ZWART (2) (1) Université catholique de Louvain, Centre de philosophie du droit, Place Montesquieu, 2 - 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve (2) Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Division of Bioeconomics, GEO-Instituut Celestijnenlaan 200E - box 2411 -B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee (3) Université Libre de Bruxelles, Centre Emile Bernheim, Avenue F. D. Roosevelt 50, 1050 Bruxelles- CP 114 Axis 5: Major societal challenges
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
FOOD4SUSTAINABILITY Collective action for sustainable food systems in a changing climate:
assessing social experimentations and policy innovations
T. DEDEURWAERDERE(1)
, O. DE SCHUTTER(1)
, E. MATHIJS(2)
, M. HUDON(3)
,
S. BUI(1)
, I. DA COSTA(1)
, A. DIPIERRI(3)
, P. FERNANDEZ-WULFF(1)
, H. JOACHAIN(3)
, T. ZWART(2)
(1) Université catholique de Louvain, Centre de philosophie du droit, Place Montesquieu, 2 -1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
(2) Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Division of Bioeconomics, GEO-Instituut
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 3
Published in 2018 by the Belgian Science Policy Office Avenue Louise 231 Louizalaan 231 B-1050 Brussels Belgium Tel: +32 (0)2 238 34 11 - Fax: +32 (0)2 230 59 12
http://www.belspo.be
http://www.belspo.be/brain-be Contact person: Christine MATHIEU Tel: +32 (0)2 238 34 93 Neither the Belgian Science Policy Office nor any person acting on behalf of the Belgian Science Policy Office is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The authors are responsible for the content.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without indicating the reference :
Bui, S., Da Costa, I., De Schutter , O., Dedeurwaerdere, T., Dipierri, A., Fernandez-Wulff, P., Hudon, M., Joachain, H., Mathijs, E., Zwart, T-A. FOOF4SUSTAINABILITY : Collective action for sustainable food systems in a changing climate: assessing social experimentations and policy innovations. Final Report. Brussels : Belgian Science Policy Office 2018 – 86 p. (BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks))
5.1 PART I. THE CONTRIBUTION OF ALTERNATIVE FOOD NETWORKS......................................................................... 17
5.1.1 Research questions and theoretical model 17
5.1.2 Methodology, data sources and field work 18
5.1.3 Results and discussion 20
5.1.4 Recommendations from the thematic research 21
5.2 PART 2A. ANALYZING THE POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION OF REGIME ACTORS ........................................................ 23
5.3 PART 2B. FOR PROFIT ECONOMIC ACTORS’ PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL DRIVERS ....................................................... 25
5.3.1 Research questions and theoretical model 25
5.3.2 Methodology, data sources and field work 29
5.3.3 Results and discussion 31
5.3.4 Recommendations from the thematic research and considerations 39
5.4 PART 2C. THE CREATION OF MARKET INNOVATIONS BY REGIME ACTORS: INSIGHTS ON ETHICS AND
GOVERNANCE OF SUSTAINABILITY TRANSITIONS ....................................................................................................... 41
5.4.1 Research questions and theoretical model 41
5.4.2 Methodology, data sources and field work 42
5.4.3 Results and discussion 43
5.4.4 Recommendations from the thematic research 47
5.5 PART 2D. TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIAL PRACTICES IN NICHE-REGIME INTERACTIONS ....................................... 48
5.5.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND THEORETICAL MODEL ............................................................................................... 48
5.5.2 Methodology, data sources and field work 50
5.5.3 Results and discussion 52
5.5.4 Follow-on study on institutional entrepreneurship 57
5.5.5 Recommendations from the thematic research 63
5.6 SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 65
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 5
6. DISSEMINATION AND VALORISATION 67 6.1 PRESENTATIONS AT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES ............................................................................................ 67
6.2 LIST OF DELIVERABLES........................................................................................................................................ 68
-- PUBLISHED ARTICLES – BOOK CHAPTER ................................................................................................................. 87
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 6
1. ABSTRACT
Context
The provision of food from agricultural inputs to distribution, contribute significantly to greenhouse gas
emissions worldwide and exert an important pressure on natural resources. Reforming food systems
towards greater sustainability is therefore essential for a transition towards a low-carbon and
resource-efficient society.
Objectives
This project aimed to explore the role of the transformation of motivations, values and visions in the
transition of the agri-food system and specifically of the instrumentality of hybrid governance
arrangements—arrangements in which both actors of the mainstream agri-food system and actors
from niche/grassroots innovations participate. We identified three transition pathways for which we
formulate recommendations: (1) change led by grassroots innovations, (2) change led by mainstream
actors and (3) hybrid arrangements.
Conclusions
Our research has demonstrated that 1) successful in-depth transformation depends on the
embeddedness of initiatives in the broader social network of organisations experimenting and learning
on in-depth lifestyle changes for sustainable agri-food systems. 2) the observed mismatches between
the practices of local producers and those of large-scale retailers and fast food chains could be dealt
with by moving back the sourcing and marketing of local goods, decision-making power to the level of
the store, fostering so a higher degree of individual initiative and institutional entrepreneurship by
store managers and employees in reconfiguring new practices .3) Overall, our analysis confirms that
in order to increase the transformative potential of agri-food system initiatives, hybrid governance
arrangements between different types of actors need to be established. They should aim at allowing
more voice for marginalized interests upholding ethical values currently missing in the conventional
supply chains, so as to foster the dissemination of a more systemic ethics of food system reform.
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 7
2. INTRODUCTION
Together, the provision of agricultural inputs, and the production, packaging,
processing, transport, and distribution of food, represent 19-29 % of greenhouse gas
emissions worldwide (Vermeulen et al., 2012); and they exert an important pressure on
natural resources, water, nitrogen and phosphate, and arable land in particular. Reforming
food systems towards greater sustainability is therefore essential for a transition towards a
low-carbon and resource-efficient society. Increasingly broad segments of society demand
such a switch, and appear to search for alternatives.
In fact, as noted by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems
(2018), Europe faces not only the global challenges of producing food for a growing world
population and reducing the negative environmental impacts, but also other systematic
challenges such as: (i) unhealthy food consumption behaviours that trigger health risks, (ii)
additional health risks due to pollution created by agri-food sectors, (iii) small-scale farmers‘
livelihoods at risk due to multiple challenges (e.g. aging farmers, debts, low incomes, etc.);
and (iv) poor working conditions due to price competition and power concentration. To tackle
these challenges, in-depth reforms in the agri-food sector, from production to distribution are
required.
Large for-profit corporations play a key role in this transition towards sustainability
(Turker, 2018:170). However, for-profit actors willing to actively participate in the transition
towards sustainability are confronted with conflicting objectives: i) to maximize profitability, ii)
to minimize environmental impact, and iii) to enhance the social wellbeing (Hassini, Surti and
Searcy, 2012:71). Focusing on these conflicting objectives Paulraj et al. (2015:2) question
why profit-oriented organizations would move towards social and environmental
sustainability within the supply chain. The authors highlighted the scarcity of win-win
situations, where companies achieved a profit-maximization (economic win) while minimizing
their environmental impact (environmental win). Indeed, from a Resource Based View (RBV)
perspective, ‗going green‘ leads to higher production costs for a company. In particular, Lin
et al. (2015:2196) highlight three types of resources needed for pro-environmental
behaviours at a company level: (i) higher capital investments in equipment, machinery, and
real state; (ii) higher material and services‘ costs from new suppliers; (iii) higher labour costs
due to higher workers and managers‘ wages.
As an initial explanation of these conflicting objectives scholars conclude that
stakeholders‘ pressure (Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen, 2009:77), increasing environmental
legislation and standards (Soosay et al., 2014:74), as well as organizations and managers‘
values (Bansal and Rothe, 2000:731) might be playing a role in this transition process
towards sustainability, even if ‗going green‘ is contradictory with the profit-maximization
objective. However, considering the slow pace of progress accomplished until today with
these conventional measures, complementary pathways to accelerate the transition
processes need to be explored. The first is the contribution of grassroots innovations led by
citizens and social economy actors. The second pathway is based on the interactions
between these grassroots innovations and the mainstream food system that may possibly
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 8
create new opportunities for radical transformation of the agri-food system. These pathways
are at present understudied and their potential poorly understood. This research aimed to
provide a systematic analysis of these pathways in the particular case of the agri-food
system.
The understanding of the potential role of these actors in the agri-food sector in
Belgium can contribute to the development of a transition model towards sustainability. In
particular, from a practical perspective, and in the short-run, understanding these different
pathways will allow policymakers to develop policies to accelerate the transition. This can
further lead, in the medium-run, to a more accurate allocation of public resources and
enhance social and ecological wellbeing of the community. Finally, in the long run, and from
a global perspective, the research findings might potentially contribute to reducing the agri-
food sector‘s environmental impacts through the cumulative contribution of all the economic
actors involved. It may also contribute to the global transition towards sustainability by
reducing the Ecological Footprint of a high-income country such as Belgium.
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 9
3. STATE OF THE ART AND OBJECTIVES
3.1 Introduction
The challenges mentioned above and the impacts of the various sustainability problems at
various levels -- on public health and on the environment, on rural poverty in the developing
world and on power imbalances in increasingly globalized food chains -- make the need for
reform urgent. Yet, it is easy to see how the various components of the food systems have
co-evolved and have now become mutually supportive, resulting in a strong path
dependency on past choices (De Schutter 2017). All actors of the food systems appear to be
caught in a trap: consumers expect to have access to a wide range of cheap and convenient
foods all year round, encouraging companies to invest in infrastructure and logistics that
achieve economies of scale and lengthen food chains; governments support such efforts as
a means to compensate for existing inequalities and the slow progress or stagnation of real
wages within the middle class; and both the introduction of Pigovian taxes to ensure
negative externalities of heavily processed foods are reflected in the price of food products
and, more generally, the imposition of further constraints on supply chain actors (except as
regards food safety rules), are perceived as politically contentious and possibly counter-
productive. The result however is a focus on the short term; strong path dependency; and an
inability for all actors (consumers, businesses and governments) to launch initiatives for
change that could have system-wide ramifications. That is not to say that no attempts are
being made to design and implement more sustainable food production and consumption
patterns; but such attempts often remain at the "niche" level, without having a significant
societal impact.
It seems therefore that we are caught in a vicious cycle: although the current system is
deeply unsustainable, its various components have co-evolved and are mutually reinforcing,
and they have come to form a coherent whole with a strong inbuilt inertia (figure 2.1).
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 10
Figure 2.1 The mutually reinforcing components of the mainstream food system
(adapted from De Schutter, 2017).
Neither politics nor critical consumerism alone seem capable of breaking the cycle. It is
therefore tempting to turn to grassroots innovations -- "citizens-led", or "bottom-up" -- as an
alternative pathway to reform. Each of these pathways to reform is discussed below, and
their respective promises and limitations highlighted.
a) Political reform
Governments have an important role to play in aligning economic incentives with the
requirements of sustainability, by the imposition of Pigovian taxes forcing the internalization
of negative externalities. They could also support good practices, and reward the ecosystem
services provided by sustainable agricultural production: attempts at valuing such services
or, conversely, at "full cost-accounting" of the impacts of industrial food systems, prepare the
ground for such interventions (TEEB, 2015). Governments could also tackle imbalances of
power in food chains. Though lessons from past historical experiences are mixed,
democratically-governed farmers' cooperatives could allow smaller-size farming units to
have better access to certain public goods and to strengthen their bargaining position vis-à-
vis both input suppliers and buyers -- establishing what J.K. Galbraith called a
"countervailing power" (Galbraith, 1952) --. And they could use competition law to address
the question of concentration or abuses of dominant position, including by prohibiting certain
specific forms of abuse of buyer power (De Schutter, 2010).
Investments in R & D and in infrastructure
Competitiveness of large-scale industrial
agriculture
1. Priority to export-led agriculture, competitive on
global markets
2. Measure of success / productivity
3. Expectation of cheap food and consumer tastes
Political responsiveness to demands of large agrifood actors
Market conditions and investments to favor
industrial farming and food systems
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 11
However, the political economy reality of high-income countries provide little hope that these
opportunities will be fully seized by governments : in addition to the capture of politics by the
dominant actors of the mainstream food system, any serious attempt at reforming food
systems that could lead to an increase in the price of food would meet with strong
opposition, as cheap calories have until now functioned as a de facto substitute for
redistributive social policies that would allow all families, including low-income families, to
have access to healthy diets. As to competition policy, its use will be limited as long as
"consumer welfare", narrowly defined as access at an affordable price to a large range of
foods, shall remain the most important factor taken into consideration in using the legal tools
available to public authorities (De Schutter, 2010).
b) Green capitalism
If solutions cannot be expected to come from governments alone, should we count on
business actors to lead reforms towards sustainable food systems? There is no shortage of
examples of regime actors, at different segments of the chain, advertising their commitment
to more sustainable practices (Pattberg, 2012; Oosterveer and Spaargaren, 2012; Hajer et
al., 2015). They know that the first movers will be rewarded by certain investors and,
increasingly, clients. For corporations who wear a recognizable brand moreover, their
reputation is a major asset that deserves protection. There are however two major limitations
to what can be achieved through this channel.
First, to the extent that the emphasis is on voluntary initiatives by companies, acting on their
own motion, the argument that such initiatives from dominant economic actors can bring
about a transition to sustainable food systems relies largely on a "business case" for
responsible business conduct. This is not entirely without foundation, considering the
progress of socially responsible investment, of ethical consumerism and, increasingly, of
shareholder activism. For instance, Hartmann (2011) reviews the results of four
mathematical meta-analyses that tend to show a positive relationship between CSR
practices and a company's financial performance. However, if that is indeed the argument, it
may imply – or be understood to imply – that where it is not profitable to invest into
sustainability policies, companies shall not do so: they may not go further in the
implementation of such policies, in other terms, than what appears economically sound.
Socially responsible conduct might come to be treated like an investment decision among
others. As such, the potential for voluntary initiatives is inherently limited. As noted by the
authors of the Responsible Competitiveness report published in December 2005 following
two years of research on the relationship between responsible business behaviour and
competitiveness, "individual businesses cannot go against the grain of the market. Being
responsible sometimes does and sometimes does not pay. (…) While the growing
significance of intangible assets has created opportunities for leveraging responsible
business practices, the intensification of competition and the short-termism of investors
constrain such practices" (Zadek et al., 2005).
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 12
The "business case" itself is, moreover, a fragile one. Any credible demonstration that there
exists a "business case" for socially responsible practice would need to carefully distinguish
between the different initiatives which might be adopted by a company to improve the
sustainability of its practices, and between the short-term and the longer-term impacts.
Whether it takes the form of the imposition of transparency requirements on corporations, in
order to allow socially responsible investors and active shareholders to exercise vigilance on
their activities (Blumberg, 1973; Branson, 1976; Williams and Conley, 2005), the monitoring
of labelling initiatives in order to avoid consumers being misled, or the enforcement of codes
of conduct, public authorities have a major role to play to ensure that voluntary initiatives by
the private sector shall make a real difference in practice -- something else, and something
more, than an attempt at "greenwashing" the company's reputation. Without the hand of the
State, "green capitalism", even though it may be fuelled to a certain extent by "critical
consumerism", may not bring us very far.
c) Grassroots innovations
Because of these various limitations that public action and business initiatives (the latter
combined with critical consumerism) face in their attempts to drive the transition to
sustainable food systems, researchers have emphasized the potential of citizens-led social
innovations. In the agri-food sector, such innovations include for instance community-
supported agriculture (CSA), in which people contribute to support local farmers by entering
into direct producer-to-consumer marketing schemes, although they might have access to
the very same products by less expensive and more convenient means; the joint
management, by members of the same neighborhood, of collective vegetable gardens; or
fair trade schemes (Hinrichs, 2014). Depending on the theoretical framework used, these
innovations are referred to as social innovations for sustainable development (Seyfang and
Smith, 2007; Kirwan et al., 2013), or (in the so-called "multi-level perspective" on transition
theory) as "niche innovations", that must be nurtured and protected in order to provide
alternatives to the mainstream regime (Geels, 2011; Spaargaren et al., 2012a).
What is the potential of these grassroots innovations for food systems reform? One
possibility is that the grassroots innovation simply coexists with the mainstream regime, not
temporarily but for a long period of time, thus creating a form of "diversity within the food
system". On the one hand, this may create the risk of providing the government with a
convenient pretext for delaying action to improve the sustainability of food systems: why,
after all, should it intervene, if discontented individuals set up their own solutions, and if
neighbourhoods or broader communities develop alternatives that satisfy their desire for
fresh and healthy foods, at the same time strengthening social links between the participants
(McClintock, 2014)? On the other hand, however, such a diversity can be deeply subversive,
obliging all actors in the food system to rethink their position, and to take responsibility for it:
instead of escaping such responsibility in the name of the "system" being so inert and
beyond any ability for any single actor to change, each individual henceforth shall have to
face the reality of different ways to produce and to consume, all equally viable, so that his or
her choice inescapably becomes political.
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 13
Beyond this coexistence scenario, transition theorists see different ways citizens-led
social innovations could interact with the mainstream and potentially transform it
(Geels & Schot, 2007). We may rank these possibilities from the more "reformist" to the
more "revolutionary", and as Geels (2011) does, relate these various possibilities to different
actors developing these innovations (as mapped in Dahle, 2007). The most reformist
scenario is one in which the niche innovation is adopted by regime actors because it
provides them with a convenient solution to existing problems, and then ―subsequent
adjustments [...] change the regime‘s basic architecture" (Geels, 2011: 32).
Putting aside the possibility of a crisis of a magnitude such that the mainstream food regime
shall be wiped out entirely to be replaced by something else -- a "de-alignment and re-
alignment" scenario that is neither the most realistic nor the most desirable, given the human
costs likely to be involved until a new equilibrium is found --, we should both promote
"diversity" and ensure that promising niche innovations that prepare the emergence
of more sustainable food systems shall influence regime transformation.
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 14
3.2. Hypothesis
To analyse sustainability transitions within various modalities of transformation scenarios
between citizen-led innovations and regime actors, this project adopted a transdisciplinary
approach to the research process. Such approach links co-construction of research
questions between social actors of food system reform on the one hand and academic
perspectives informed by various theoretical models. These models were built within an
interdisciplinary framework combining sociological work within actor-network theory (ANT)
and the multi-level perspective (MLP) from transition studies, with scholarship in social and
solidarity economy and intrinsic corporate social responsibility.
The transdisciplinary knowledge co-construction approach to transition process allows us to
bring new insights, by better integrating the real-life world interpretations from situated actors
in transition processes. In particular, what underlies actors‘ transition process is the
transformation of intrinsic motivations, social values and worldviews. Consequently, the
understanding of the transformation and the alignment of these motivations, values and
views amongst the social actors is of crucial importance for producing the transformation
knowledge for transition.
The general hypothesis of the research is that to be a driver for sustainability transitions,
changes in actors‘ motivations, social values and visions need to be systemic. A first
specific hypothesis is that transformations of motivations, values and visions should
not only guide the strategies and activities of all actors of the sociotechnical system,
but they should also relate to a systemic understanding of the problems, i.e. question
the underlying assumptions on which the agro-industrial paradigm developed (such
as the assumption of infinite resources, of prices effectively reflecting scarcity and
responding to needs, of progress measured by yields of the dominant crop per
surface, or of the need to increase production). Second, hybrid governance
arrangements putting together incumbent actors and actors who are not stakeholders of the
dominant food system favour the development of new values and visions and the
emergence of such a systemic perspective. Therefore a second specific hypothesis of the
research is that hybrid governance arrangements that include actors that convey
different visions of the future of food systems and provide a different framing of its
challenges are a key feature for initiatives not to contribute to further lock-in effects
and for the involved actors to enter a transition process.
To explore the contribution of these two hypotheses to explaining sustainability transitions in
the agri-food systems, this project organized a series of field inquiries with actors within the
agri-food system in Belgium. The first set of field inquiries is related to the so-called
alternative food networks, whose explicit aim is to build an alternative model to the
agroindustrial system. The second set of field inquiries is related to market innovations and
corporate social responsibility by mainstream actors of the food system.
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 15
4. METHODOLOGY
To test the fruitfulness of our perspective on understanding transitions through the lens of
the coexistence and transformation pathways between grassroots innovations and regime
actors, the project is organized in two main interrelated parts. The first part analyses the
conditions of emergence and growth of grassroots innovations, and their contribution to
radical innovations in the food system. The second part analyses the potential contribution of
actors of the mainstream food regime.
Part I focuses on grassroots innovations by citizens and social economy actors that
contribute to create sociodiversity in the food system. To analyse their contribution to
sustainability transitions, part I conducted a social network analysis of alternative food
networks. Its aim is to address the following questions:
What are the conditions of emergence and growth, by upscaling or dissemination, of
grassroots innovations?
What is the role of ―network bridging organisations‖ of various types, which have the
ambition to create the necessary organisational mechanisms to foster social learning
on the transition of the food system and support to the development of innovative
practices?
Part II focuses on initiatives involving regime actors to analyse their possible contribution to
sustainability transitions. This part examines the motivations for environmentally responsible
behaviour of for-profit businesses and to which extent practices such as local sourcing in
supermarkets can contribute to a sustainability transition. It aims to bring insights to two
questions:
Are interactions between regime actors (such as retail corporations) and niche actors
(for instance local initiatives supplying big retailers with local products or NGOs)
contributing to a deep transformation of the dominant food system, and if so, how?
Is the introduction of more sustainable products in corporations‘ sourcing strategies
an opportunity for a profound change (i.e. for sustainable farming and food practices,
preservation of biodiversity, and for social and solidarity economy practices to scale‐
up) or does it rather reinforce the lock‐in of the dominant system?
At the beginning of the project, the research questions were co-constructed through a multi-
stakeholder workshop. For each of the thematic studies developed but also in Part 2, the
following step-wise process was then organized:
(1) Development of a theoretical model for the study of transition processes in the
specific theme
(2) Design and field testing of an interview guide based on the theoretical framework
(3) Data gathering through face to face interviews
(4) Analysis
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 16
The details of the method, for each of the thematic studies, are specified in the respective
―methodology, data sources and field work‖ sections.
A final workshop was organised at the end of the project to present and discuss the results
with all the stakeholders who contributed to the research (workshop participants,
interviewees, members of the follow-up committee).
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 17
5. SCIENTIFIC RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Part I. The contribution of alternative food networks
The involvement of citizens and consumers in sustainable local and regional food networks
has emerged over the last decades as one of the tools for promoting civic learning on the
change in production and consumption practices. The contribution of local food networks to
bringing about a shift to more sustainable agri-food systems is, however, a matter of intense
debate. Indeed, such initiatives may involve trade-offs between the various sustainability
features. For instance, a large-scale study by scientific experts, regional stakeholders and
practitioners of local food networks within five metropolitan areas in Europe shows that,
whereas short and regional food chains generally perform better than the conventional
global long food chains as regards environmental sustainability, this is not necessarily true
for all types of short and regional food chains. Indeed, rather than rewarding producers with
the most sustainable agronomic practices and thus providing benefits to the society as a
whole, some short and regional food chains, in fact, respond to the preferences of individual
consumers for ―fresh and healthy‖ food linked to local food cultures (Foodmetres, 2014). The
ecological footprint of food chains, moreover, may have to take into account also the
distances travelled by individuals or families from their home to the place of sale: visiting a
farm to buy products on the farm may have a high impact, higher than when families buy in
the local supermarket or grocery. Similarly, alternative food networks may lead to the
gradual emergence of a two-tiered food system, in which the wealthiest households have
access to high-quality and fresh foods, with only more heavily processed and low-quality
food being affordable for poor families.
To disentangle these contrasted contributions to sustainability, this thematic research
investigates a central player in the alternative food networks, which are the food buying
groups, and the bridging networks that foster social learning amongst the social movements
and the umbrella organisations of these food buying groups.
5.1.1 Research questions and theoretical model
The key hypothesis of this thematic research is that the activities of the food buying groups
combine various aims, in varying proportions in each initiative, and that these distinct aims
call for different modes of governance and kinds of support. The sample that is investigated
includes both organisations that more actively promote the goals of changing the agri-food
systems (through a social network component, oriented towards social transformation and
empowerment on more sustainable farming systems) and organisations that have a more
functional orientation, geared towards the provision of services (through a non-profit service
component, oriented towards enlisting consumers and producers in more sustainable
consumption patterns, providing support for software or contracts).
A set of research questions emerge once we take into account the hybrid nature (social
network and social enterprise) of the organisations in the alternative food networks.
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 18
However, key issues in support of these aims, such as the mobilisation of resources for their
functioning and the mechanisms to enlist and commit members have hardly been subject to
a systematic empirical assessment. One notable exception is the study of hybrids between
non-profits and social movements for peace and reconciliation in South Africa (Hasenfeld
and Gidron, 2005, p. 105–107). In this case, researchers showed that members of hybrids
typically gather around common social values, mobilise resources through accessing social
networks and connecting with organisations that control important resources (including
members, funds, legitimacy, and technical expertise), and build social capital by responding
to the expressive and social identity needs of their members. The qualitative assessment of
sustainable food chains in major EU city areas (Foodmeters, 2014) also highlighted the
importance of these features, even though the ―social capital‖ aspects appear to be less well
analysed in some of the studies (for an exception, see Berehm and Eisenhauer, 2008).
To assess the role of the various tools and mechanisms mobilized in the social movement
and the social enterprise components of the alternative food networks, two regression
models were developed, based on the responses to the multiple choice options of a semi-
structured questionnaire. The first regression model focuses on resource mobilisation and
commitment, while the second model focuses on direct and indirect policy support.
Figure 5.1.1 Food buying groups as a hybrid social enterprise/social network organisational form.
5.1.2 Methodology, data sources and field work
We conducted field interviews between December 2014 and July 2015 across 104 food
buying groups in the three Belgian regions. The sample was built to have a broad diversity of
food geographies, including 3 large urban areas, 2 small-size urban areas and 2 non-urban
areas. Because we aimed to identify the potential network effects, a number of food buying
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 19
groups within a radius of 30 km were chosen in each area. Further, as illustrated in Table 2,
the survey covered a broad variety of organisational types representative of the main
categories of local and sustainable producer-consumer partnerships. The questionnaire
checked for the viability of the organisations: all the organisations surveyed had developed
an economically stable partnership with the producer, and all showed a stable or growing
membership (the main reason for leaving the group is that people move out to another
place).
During the interviews, a semi-structured questionnaire was administered, containing 3 open
questions and 28 closed questions with predefined multiple-choice options. With the
exception of 4 interviews with the ―Ruches‖, and 4 interviews with the ―GAC‖ (Groupements
d‘Achats en Commun), which were conducted by phone, all the interviews were done face to
face, each lasting between 45 min and 2 hours.
Table 5.1.1 Organisational forms of the studied food buying groups
Key features Number of interviews
Total number of organisations in Belgium
Voedselteams (Leuven, Antwerp (both urban), and Limburg (non-urban))
System of weekly orders, strong umbrella organisation that provide support for software and identification of new producers (membership fee of 15 euros/year)
System of solidarity contract with the farmer (usually 1 year contract), loose federation, members also contribute to harvesting
8 31 (Oct. 2015)
Ruches : La Ruche qui dit Oui (Brussels, Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (both urban), Walloon Region (non-urban))
System of weekly orders, strong umbrella organisation structured as a social enterprise (Entreprise Solidaire d‘Utilité Sociale), 8,35% of the price paid by the consumer goes to the umbrella organisation and another 8,35% to the person who created and manages the Ruche
7 53 (Oct. 2015)
AMAP : Association pour le maintien de l‘agriculture paysanne (Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (urban), Walloon Region (non-urban))
System of solidarity contract with the farmer (usually 1 year contract), loose federation, no membership fee
2 (included above)
TOTAL 104 481
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 20
5.1.3 Results and discussion
The research highlighted two major challenges facing the operation of food buying groups.
First, these organisations are dependent on mechanisms to increase the local and regional
supply of sustainable farm products, by supporting farmers involved in low-input, agro-
ecological or organic farming systems or by supporting the conversion of farmers to such
systems. Secondly, these initiatives lack means to promote broader social learning on
possible lifestyle changes for the transition to sustainable agri-food systems, although some
seek to compensate for this by linking to other initiatives involved in social learning around
such lifestyle changes through information sharing, knowledge exchange and common
activities.
This research shows that organisational networks of food buying groups seek to address this
twin challenge by a hybridisation of a social enterprise component, focused on service
provision for the organisation of the sustainable food short chains (such as through
mobilizing voluntary labour for collection and distribution), and a social network component,
focused on the information sharing and joint activities. More specifically, the food buying
groups with the highest number of activities related to in-depth transformation of the food
system include members from within each component.
Two main results stand out. First, an important element of the social network component is
the construction of social and ecological sustainability transitions as a multi-dimensional
concept, which goes far beyond the ―local market‖ or ―fresh and healthy‖ dimensions only.
This is especially important, as this multi-dimensional interpretation of sustainability has to
compete for instance with a growing discourse of economic nationalism/regionalism that
focuses on local economic production, without necessarily integrating the ecological and
social dimensions. For instance, cheese from a local high input large-scale industrial
provider can be promoted with a ―regional‖ label, in spite of the fact that such local sourcing
is not related to sustainable consumption and/or production methods. Moreover, to provide
plausible alternative pathways AFNs need to strike the right balance between potentially
these conflicting objectives.
The broader orientation of the food buying groups, beyond the discourse of economic
nationalism/regionalism or satisfaction of individual consumer preferences, is confirmed by
the survey results. In particular, the coordinators of the groups indicated that experimenting
with sustainable lifestyle changes is one of the most important objectives of the organization
(question 31), and they rank support to sustainable farming practices higher than the
promotion of short circuits (question 29). This is also reflected in the composition of the food
baskets, which often complement the local supply in sustainable farming products with
organic products from a regional wholesaler if these are not otherwise available. In addition,
the responses to the questions on the network relations clearly show the multi-dimensional
nature of this process. Not only ―local‖ or ―healthy‖ food-related organizations, such as the
small-scale farmer and the local groceries, rank high in the organizations with which the
strongest relationships are developed. Other organizations such as organizations promoting
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 21
sustainable agriculture, fair trade or social organizations are mentioned as having a major
influence. Further, in a substantial number of the groups that were interviewed, this social
networking extended to explicit linkage to broader clusters of social and ecological initiatives,
in particular with the members of the transition movement (formerly transition towns).
Second, the groups largely favour decentralized modes of coordination for organizing the
social network component, as compared to more centralized modes of coordination. These
decentralized networks play a role in the information sharing and cooperation around
activities of alternative food networks, but also in the dissemination and exchange of
information on organizational tools to set up and develop food buying groups. As regards the
social learning networks around lifestyle changes, centralized network connections with
national or regional authorities rank very low in the questions of the survey related to trust
and influence. In contrast, decentralized networks, such as networking with nearby food
buying groups, local groceries and other food transition associations all rank very high in the
declared relationships of trust and influence. In relation to the dissemination of the
organisational tools, legal and organisational advice from peers is preferred to expert advice
or advice from public administrations.
5.1.4 Recommendations from the thematic research
These insights on the multi-dimensional understanding of the transition to sustainable agri-
food systems, and the role of decentralized networking in fostering collective learning hint to
some governance recommendations for the operation of grassroots innovations in the
alternative food networks. First, the choice of an organisational structure is not a sufficient
condition for a fruitful combination of the social enterprise and the social network
components. As shown by the questionnaire results, the choice of a social cooperative
organisation of the type ―community supported agriculture‖ (CSA) is not a guarantee for a
successful implementation of the social network component. Indeed, some organisations in
the CSA sub-sample are stronger on the social networking than others. Conversely, the
choice of a more commercially oriented social enterprise such as ―La ruche qui dit Oui‖ does
not preclude the possibility for successfully addressing the social network aspects geared
towards an in-depth transformation of the food system. Rather than organisational form as
such, the key feature for a successful contribution to in-depth transformation seems to be the
ability to embed a given initiative in the local social network of organisations experimenting
and learning on in-depth lifestyle changes for sustainable agri-food systems. Such
embedding can be the result of information sharing or the organisation of joint activities with
other sustainable food-related organisations, such as local groceries and cooperatives, but
can also be based to more integrated forms such as the participation in the activities of the
established transition network in Belgium.
Finally, the governance requirements of the hybrid social network/social enterprise
components of the food buying groups also indicate some questions for further research. In
particular, scholars of non-state collective action have shown the important role of network
bridging organisations in collaborative social networks amongst private not-for-profit and
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 22
public sector actors (Berkes, 2009; Dedeurwaerdere et al., 2015). Such network bridging
organisations include regional platforms, umbrella organisations or knowledge hubs, among
others. These organisations fulfil various roles that are key to the building of the cooperative
action amongst the various social actors that drive the transition initiatives.
The results of our analysis (as summarized in Dedeurwaerdere et al. 2017) points to two
important categories of tasks for such network bridging organisations in the case of
alternative food networks. First, as can be seen from the survey, various governance means
are specifically needed for developing the social enterprise service activities component.
Many local and regional food networks still have to cope with inefficient distribution channels,
lack of administrative support and poor infrastructure. Umbrella organisations, supported
both by public authorities and members‘ fees, can step in to overcome some of these
insufficiencies. For example, in one of the cases analysed in this research, the
Voedselteams vzw (cf. table 5.1.1) is a strong umbrella organisation supporting the local
groups in the search for suppliers located within their vicinity. This kind of support (helping to
identify local producers) is strongly correlated in the survey with the trust expressed by the
local groups in the umbrella organisations. In another prominent example abroad, the case
of the Seikatsu Club in Japan, the umbrella organisation coordinates the consumer demand
for products other than fruits and vegetables and organizes the transportation of these
products from the producers to the food buying groups in the most efficient manner.
A second category of tasks for umbrella organisations that can be related to the outcomes of
this research is the support for decentralized network activities related to social learning
amongst grassroots initiatives and with other sustainable food organizations. In contrast to
the more conventional supportive activities (such as exchange of best practices,
administrative support or legal advice), this collaborative aspect is often less straightforward.
Indeed, as also shown elsewhere, successful social learning in networks of non-state
collective actors depends on ―process‖ dimensions such as non-coercive deliberation and
inclusive participation (Innes and Booher, 2003). An interesting example of a network
bridging organisation operating along these lines is the ―Endogenous Regional
Development‖ programme supported by the regional authorities in Austria (Petrovics et al.,
2010). This programme is explicitly geared towards supporting social enterprises for regional
sustainability transitions, but it also includes an important aspect of regional and supra-
regional dialogue between the initiatives. Another example is the role of the ―Grand Projet
Rhône-Alpes‖ in the Vallée de la Drôme in Southern France, where support for non-profit
and for-profit enterprises involved in ecological transition activities was combined with a
collaborative networking of all the actors in a specific territory (Lamine et al., 2014; De
Schutter et al., 2016). In the case study area that was the focus of this thematic research,
potential network organisations that operate along these lines are the ―Ceinture alimen-terre
Liégeoise‖ (www.catl.be) and the forum ―Gent en Garde‖ (https://gentengarde.stad.gent). An
interesting example of networking amongst non-profit and for-profit actors is the social
enterprises hub Coopcity in the Brussels Region, which links food system reform initiatives
with issues of overcoming urban poverty. However, further research is needed to document
the effects of these organisations on the development of the local food networks and to
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 23
better understand the various governance and complex process management needs of the
collaborative tools established in such larger-scale social learning processes.
5.2 Part 2A. Analyzing the potential contribution of regime actors
Part 2 consists of three thematic studies that address the potential contribution of regime
actors from the mainstream food system. The first thematic study aims to map the
motivations of regime actors in the food system in Belgium that adopt a socially and
environmentally responsible behaviour. The second and the third studies aim to analyse the
potential contribution of innovative food networks involving regime actors. These three
thematic studies appear particularly promising for three reasons. First, social innovations by
regime actors can open up new marketing opportunities to sustainable small-scale food
producers and processors. As such, these schemes could be a way to reverse the trend
towards increased production concentration and the growing distance between food
production and consumption which characterise the current agri-food system (Friedmann
and McMichael 1989; IPES-Food 2017). Second, such hybrid schemes articulate the local
with the global and as such they offer an opportunity to explore the transformative potential
of going beyond the divide between conventional and alternative food chains to explore
power imbalances and their broader effects on rural development (Sonnino and Marsden
2006). And third, ―transition‖ is a polysemic term, which may aggregate many dimensions of
agriculture and sustainable food system values. The thematic studies on innovative food
networks involving regime actors hold strong potential of providing insights on the social
construct of food related values, and on the way local governance arrangements may
influence the sociotechnical trajectory the agri-food system is embarked upon.
Supermarkets, food processors and wholesale businesses are acknowledged to have a
central role in the food supply chain and more broadly in the shaping of the global agri-food
system. For instance, there is a broad literature on the impacts of private standards set by
retailers on the export opportunities for producers from developing countries (e.g. Henson
and Humphrey 2010; Swinnen and Vandemoortele 2011) as well as on the growing
dependence of small-scale producers in developed countries (e.g. Richards et al. 2013).
However, these regime actors have been generally neglected by transition studies.
Analyses of lock-in effects have mainly focused on the production side and pesticide issue
(e.g., Vanloqueren and Baret 2008; Lamine et al. 2010, building on seminal work by Cowan
and Gunby 1996), overlooking not only consumers but also large-scale intermediaries and
retailers. Some studies do indicate, however, that by imposing certain standards on the
upstream part of the food chain (e.g. homogeneity standards, volume and uninterrupted
supply requirements), corporate retailers exclude from their shelves a significant part of
precisely the food products that are most sustainably produced, reducing the availability of
such products for consumers. For example, the socio-historical analysis of fruit production in
France by Lamine et al. (Lamine, Audergon, et al. 2014) shows how these standards can
force farmers to make intensive use of chemical inputs.
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 24
In addition to marketing practices, abuse of buyer power also contributes to exclude some
forms of sustainable food products from corporate retailers‘ shelves, by undermining social
sustainability either directly or indirectly: pressure on prices contributes to further
restructuring agri-food production from a large number of small producers to a small number
of large producers (Konefal et al. 2005), whereas the further concentration of the power of
oligopsonies reduces the number of alternative food outlets able to market products of small-
scale farmers (McCullough et al. 2010).
The corporate retailers‘ increasing market power led to the emergence of a retailer-led
governance of the agri-food system in the 1990s: retailers took over not only market
governance, but also gained influence on food regulatory systems, including at the EU level
(Marsden et al. 2000). Retailers‘ strategies to develop private standards and improve food
products to take into account concerns expressed by increasingly aware consumers further
led the governance to be privatized. Retailers shifted backstage, out of reach of social
movements and agricultural-environmental advocacy organisations (Konefal et al. 2005), as
well as medium- and small-scale operators (Busch 2003).
Considering the central role corporate supermarkets, food processors and wholesale
businesses play in maintaining (or removing) the lock-in in unsustainable food systems,
rebalancing relationships among actors appears crucial. As mentioned above, some
scholars believe social movements are best equipped to put pressure on or collaborate with
incumbent actors to achieve this rebalancing in the agri-food system (e.g., Buttel 1997;
Konefal et al. 2005; Friedmann and Mcnair 2008), while others argue that this should be a
responsibility of states (e.g., Buttel 1997; De Schutter 2009). This research explores an
alternative possibility and considers innovative food networks which hold potential for an
underestimated and potentially powerful mechanism to achieve the rebalancing.
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 25
5.3 Part 2B. For profit economic actors’ pro-environmental drivers
For-profit organizations (from now onwards refer to as ―companies‖), as active participants of
the food system, may contribute to the transition towards sustainability and the achievement
of a sustainable production and consumption agri-food system. In fact, some companies of
the agri-food sector have introduced changes in their businesses to take into consideration
social and ecological sustainability. However, the weight afforded to sustainability concerns
varies among them (Turker, 2018:161). This leads to a heterogeneous composition of the
agri-food sector, with green-oriented and non-green-oriented companies coexisting.
Thus, the aim of this first thematic research of part 2 is to contribute to the understanding of
the agri-food sector companies‘ drivers towards sustainability. In other words, this research
would like to address the following question: what drives companies in the agri-food sector to
―go green‖? Subsequent research questions are: i) Do pro-environmental drivers vary among
companies of different size?; ii) Do pro-environmental drivers vary among companies of
different maturity?; iii) Do pro-environmental drivers relate to the companies‘ internal/external
pro-environmental motivations? To answer these questions this section focuses on a case
study of Belgian agri-food companies.
Pro-environmental drivers have been widely researched and discussed in the past, but not in
the agri-food sector. Furthermore, most of the pro-environmental studies have been
conducted for large companies, while Small Medium Enterprises‘ (SMEs) motivations remain
unexplored (Sandhu et al., 2014). Thus, the agri-food companies‘ (including SMEs) pro-
environmental drivers, as well as the influence of various explanatory variables such as size,
maturity, internal/external motivations, and external support mediate their pro-environmental
drivers constitute an interesting knowledge gap.
5.3.1 Research questions and theoretical model
Mazurkiewicz (2004:2) defines ‗Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility‘ as ―the duty
to cover the environmental implications of the company‘s operations, products and facilities;
eliminate waste and emissions; maximize the efficiency and productivity of its resources; and
minimize practices that might adversely affect the enjoyment of the country‘s resources by
future generations‖. The wide and rich implications of this construct led to an extensive
discussion on the construct‘s composite dimensions (Rahman and Post, 2011). Indeed,
some authors argue the existence of up to 5 (five) or 7 (seven) environmental
responsiveness‘ dimensions (Ilinitch, 1998; Jose and Lee, 2007; Clarkson et al., 2008). After
a careful literature review, in combination with primary data collection and analysis, Bansal
and Roth (2000) concluded on three main drivers towards Corporate Ecological
Responsiveness (CER): i) market competitiveness, ii) conformity to social norms and
legislation, and iii) social responsibility (Table 5.3.1). This model was judged to provide the
most relevant framework for analysis for the purpose of the current research because: (i)
other frameworks are limited to large companies that have the required data available
(Rahman and Post, 2012) while SMEs are not considered, and because (ii) different from
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 26
Mazurkiewicz (2004) that based the definition on the organization‘s environmental
responsiveness in terms of ―duty‖, Bansal and Roth‘s (2000) definition focuses on the
companies‘ initiatives to measure their pro-environmental drivers.
Table 5.3.1: Corporate Ecological Responsiveness Construct (adapted from Bansal and Roth
2000)
Dimensions of ecological responsiveness
Competitiveness Conformity Social responsibility
Definition ―(…) the potential for
ecological responsiveness
to improve long-term
profitability.‖ (Bansal and
Roth, 2000:724)
―(…) the desire of a firm
to improve the
appropriateness of its
actions within an
established set of
regulations, norms,
values or beliefs‖ (Bansal
and Roth, 2000:726)
―(…) a motivation that
stems from the
concern that a firm
has for its social
obligations and
values‖ (Bansal and
Roth, 2000:728)
Initiatives/
Indicators
1. Energy and waste
management
2. Resources reduction
3. Ecolabelling
4. Green Marketing
5. Eco products
6. Adoption of EMS
7. Legislation
compliance
8. Creation of
environmental
committee or
environmental
manager
9. Network with local
community
representations
10. Implementation of
environmental Audits
11. Establishment of
an emergency
response system
12. Aligned the firm‘s
image with
environmental
advocates
13. Redevelopmen
t of local
community areas
to greenfield sites
14. Provision of a
less profitable
green product line
15. Donation to
environment
interest groups and
local community
groups
16. Use of
recycled paper
17. Replacement
of retail items or
office product with
more ecologically
benign items
18. Recycling of
office wastes
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 27
(Continued)
Anticipated
benefits
Higher profits
Process intensification
Larger market share
Lower costs
Differentiation
Higher share price
Rent-earning resources and
capabilities
Long term sustainability
Survival
License to operate
Avoiding fines and
penalties
Lessening risks
Employee satisfaction
Feel-good factors
Employee morale
Individual satisfaction
Ends Profitability Firm survival Corporate morale
Means Competitive advantage Compliance with norms
and regulations
Social good
Constituent
focus
Customers, investors Government, local
community, stakeholders
Society
Decision
analysis
Cost-benefit analysis Costs and risk of
noncompliance
Ecological values
Decision rule Maximize Satisfice Idealize
Strategic
procedure
Innovative Isomorphic/imitative Independent
To explore what characteristics of the company impact on environmental responsiveness,
three general features that have been identified in the literature are examined. First the
companies‘ environmental management with an evolutionary perspective using age as a
proxy to companies‘ maturity, second companies‘ size using companies‘ headcounts as a
proxy, and third the companies‘ pro-environmental motivations distinguishing between
internal and external motivations.
a) Environmental Management and Maturity
Environmental Management ―involves the study of all technical and organizational activities
aimed at reducing the environmental impact caused by a company‘s business operations‖
(Crammer, 1998 in Ormazabal and Sarriegi, 2014:74). Ormanzabal and Puga-Leal (2016)
argue that companies‘ pro-environmental drivers might be based on what they have
achieved in the path. In other words, their maturity stages might determine their pro-
environmental approach and drivers might change depending on the companies‘
environmental maturity. In this vein, several scholars (Ormanzabal and Puga-Leal, 2016;
Inoue, Arimura, and Nakano, 2013) find a positive and significant relationship between
maturity and investment in environmental research and development. Jabbour et al. (2014)
also find a positive and significant relationship between companies‘ environmental
management maturity and the adoption of green chain supply management. However, no
studies assessed it for the specific case of the agri-food sector. This specificity is critical
because, as previously argued, pro-environmental drivers seem to be sector specific
(Jabbour, 2010).
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 28
Interestingly Ormazabal et al.‘s (2015) environmental management model has common
elements with the CER construct developed by Bansal and Roth (2000). The early stages of
the model (‗Legislation fulfillment‘ and ‗Responsibility assignment and Training‘) are related
with the ‗Conformity Driver of Bansal and Roth‘s construct, the middle stages
(‗Systematization‘ and ‗ECO2‘) are related with the ‗Social Responsibility driver‖ of the
construct and finally the later stages (‗Eco-Innovations‘ and ‗Leading Green Company‘) are
related with the Competitiveness driver of the CER construct (see Table 3). We
hypothesizes, using age as a proxy to maturity, that mature companies will be more
motivated than young companies considering the cumulative process argue by Ormanzabal
and Puga-Leal (2016)
b) Size
The moderating effect of companies‘ size on corporate environmental responsiveness is
highly contested in the literature (Elsayed, 2006), with two distinctive positions. The first
group of scholars concludes that large companies are (i) more visible; hence they are highly
exposed to stakeholders (González-Benito and González-Benito, 2006); government and
customers‘ pressure (Henriques and Sadorsky, 1996). They also (ii) benefit from economies
of scale and after introducing pro-environmental plans, initiatives, and/or production lines
(Robinson, 2013). Therefore, they are more likely to have a ‗green approach‘ to their
production and operations (Zee et al., 2011). In contrast, the second group of scholars
argues that small companies also have (i) high visibility (Chen and Hambrick, 1995) and are
exposed to social pressure, at least at a local level. Mainly because they not only offer
services locally but also create jobs at a local level. This allows them to develop a strong
social capital (Perrini, 2006) and to be highly visible locally (Bowen, 2002). Additionally,
small companies (ii) are more flexible (Bowen, 2002; Jenkins, 2009; von Høivik & Shankar,
2011), so they can introduce the required pro-environmental adjustments both faster and at
a lower organisational cost (Aragón-Correa et al., 2008, Dean, Brown, and Bamford, 1998;
Larson, 2000). Small companies, ultimately, (iii) are more likely to establish a ‗green culture‘
(Schick et al., 2002) with a higher ‗green awareness‘ (Zee et al., 2009).
Our literature review leads us to hypothesize that both small and large companies might
report high levels of competitiveness, conformity and social responsibility, but the underlying
reasons might vary among them. For middle size companies, the effect of size on their
drivers is not that clear. They do not necessarily have available resources nor are highly
visible.
c) Motivations
According to Bansal and Roth‘s (2000) results, companies in their sample intensively used
the word ‗compliance‘ linked to the ‗conformity‘ driver. The authors understand these
behaviours as reactive initiatives to external motivations, usually concentrating on the
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 29
demands of the stakeholder (the community, their customers and the government) with the
greatest influence.
On the contrary, the same scholars found that the ‗social responsibility‘ driver clearly
differentiates from the ‗conformity‘ driver. The ‗social responsibility‘ driver was rather ethical
and can then be considered as a companies‘ internal motivation. In fact, it is argue that it
came either from the organizations‘ or the managers‘ values. In other words, different from
the ‗conformity‘ driver, initiatives associated with the social responsibility driver were
independent and creative.
In this scenario, we hypothesize that there is a positive relationship between companies‘
conformity driver and external motivation, as well as between companies‘ social
responsibility driver and internal motivation.
5.3.2 Methodology, data sources and field work
Data for this research was collected through a nation-wide online survey distributed in three
languages (French, Dutch and English) to more than 1,737 companies of the Belgian agri-
food sector. In total 365 companies responded to the survey leading to a 21.01% response
rate. The latter is consistent with other survey-like researches in the topic (Darnall et al.,
2009; Ormazabal and Puga-Leal, 2016). Nevertheless, only surveys that were 100%
completed were kept, leaving a sample of 205 companies (11.8%), also consistent with
complete answers response rates in previous researches (Ormazabal and Sarriegi, 2014,
Ormazabal et al., 2016; Navrocka and Parker, 2009). From the complete 205 surveys, 4
(four) of the respondents reported not to have an overview of the company (screening
question). Thus, these surveys were removed from the dataset and only the remaining 201
surveys were kept. In some, the final sample included only responses from experienced and
well-positioned respondents.
The units of analysis (the companies) contained a predominant representation of micro and
small companies. The majority had a limited company (Société Anonyme/Naamloze
vennootschap) legal status, and had 16 to 50 years of existence. Most of the companies
reported not receiving external support for pro-environmental activities. Thus, most of them
develop their pro-environmental actions with their own resources.
The structured cross-sectional survey had 23 questions, was conducted online, and it
included the following sections:
(Section A) socio-demographic information of the respondent,
(Section B) sectorial activity of the company,
(Section C) environmental responsiveness,
(Section D) motivations towards pro-environmental behaviours,
(Section E) external support for pro-environmental behaviours in the present and
future considerations,
(Section F) use and sourcing of biomass,
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 30
(Section G) questions about the organization.
Section C included indicators of the three dimensions of corporate environmental
responsiveness (cf. table 5.3.1) as statements and respondents were asked to give an
answer using a five (5) points Likert Scale (ranging from ―(1) Disagree‖ to ―(5) Agree‖). The
indicators were developed based on Bansal and Roth‘s analysis (2000) (see Table 5.3.1). To
avoid the influence that the statements‘ order could have on participants, options were
randomly assigned in each survey (Visser et al. 2000).
Potential limitations of the results obtained are the biases that might have occurred
throughout the process. To avoid selection bias while creating our database we used three
different information sources, with a random selection procedure to select companies in
each of these sources: Food.be, Europages, and ―importing agri-food companies in Belgium‖
(provided by Ad Hoc Data). We did not incorporate other sources because during the
introduction of the third source we reached the point of saturation (companies repeated).
Duplications were removed accordingly. The emails and addresses were crosschecked
using other sources (companies‘ website and online search). To select the companies that
received a paper invitation letter a systematic sampling strategy was implemented for the
first round of distribution of the survey.
Social desirability bias might have also occurred due to social pressure towards pro-
environmental behaviours. To overcome this bias, the anonymity of the replies was
emphasized during all the communication with the companies (phone calls, emails, letters,
as well as the survey introduction). We believe that our anonymity strategy to overcome this
bias was successful. Indeed, 37.24% of the respondents disagree or partially disagree with
the Corporate Ecological Responsiveness (CER) statements. Additionally, Arimura, Hibiki
and Katayama (2008:293), show that the direction of the bias is unpredictable; it can be
positive or negative.
This anonymity, on the other hand, prevented the researchers from cross-checking the
results obtained with other information sources such as companies‘ report or websites. This
crosscheck was considered relevant due to the self-assessment condition. Nevertheless, the
guarantee of anonymity was deemed more relevant for the research to overcome the social
desirability bias previously explained.
Another potential bias that might have occurred during the sampling is a self-selection bias.
Thus, the willingness to participate might have varied among companies: companies‘
willingness to respond might have been higher in companies with stronger environmental
interest. We believe, however, that our sample has a good representation of non-motivated
companies as well. In fact, 34.10% of the sample indicated that they are not pro-
environmentally motivated (whether internally or externally).
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 31
5.3.3 Results and discussion
a) Descriptive statistics
The majority of the sample (42.79%) is composed of micro-level companies with less than
10 employees, followed by small companies with 10 to 49 employees (36.32%). Medium-
size (50 to 249 employees, 11.94%) and large (more than 250 employees, 8.95%)
companies represent a smaller share of the total sample (Figure 5.3.1).
Figure 5.3.1 Sample per organization‘s size
The legal statuses of the companies informed by the respondents in the sample are mainly
Limited Companies (58.21%), Limited Liability companies (19.40%), and Personal Business
(18.91%) (Figure 5.3.2).
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 32
Figure 5.3.2: Sample per organization‘s legal structure
In terms of maturity, measured through the age of the company as a proxy, almost half the
sample are mature companies (between 16 to 50 years old, 47.76%) (Figure 5.3.3). The
remaining half of the sample distributes between young companies (0 to 15 years old
companies, 22.39%) and classical companies (more than 50 years old companies, 29.85%).
Figure 5.3.3: Sample per organization‘s age
b) Pro-environmental drivers
Bansal and Roth (2000:733) conclude that companies were mainly motivated by conformity
aspects, followed by competitiveness, and finally for social responsibility aspects. As can be
seen in Figure 5.3.4, in our case the main driver is competitiveness, followed by conformity,
and finally social responsibility. An initial conclusion for policymakers could be that, to
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 33
incentivize the Belgian agri-food companies towards sustainability and pro-environmental
considerations, conformity plays an important role and should be highly considered like in
Bansal and Roth (2000). Nevertheless, competitiveness has also a relevant role that should
be kept in consideration. A potential explanation for the predominant role of competitiveness
could be a demand-pull effect. This is, companies in the Belgian agri-food sector might be
developing pro-environmental actions to increase their market share in response to an
increasingly eco-friendly demand. This argument requires further research. The third driver
in our case, social responsibility, also plays a quite relevant role. Bansal and Roth (2000)
associated this driver with the values of the organizations or the values of the managers. As
will be shown in the following paragraphs, the positive relationship between internal pro-
environmental motivations and the social responsibility driver was found in our case study,
supporting the authors‘ findings.
Figure 5.3.4: Level of agreement per driver
c) The role of maturity on the pro-environmental drivers
The level of agreement with the different pro-environmental drivers (conformity,
competitiveness and social responsibility) varies among the companies in our sample. First,
for the social/legal conformity dimension older companies agree more than younger
companies, as predicted (Figure 5.3.5). Second, and contrary to the conformity driver
results, the competitiveness driver (i.e., the importance companies attach to environmental
responsiveness as a source of competitive advantage) shows a reverse pattern. In fact,
younger companies‘ level of agreement with the competitiveness indicators exceeds the rest
of the companies (Figure 5.3.6). Potential explanations to these results are that younger
companies were established after the rise of environmental awareness era in the 1990s.
Thus, they might have, in a greater proportion, a ‗green culture‘ that is part of their core
business. Additionally, most of the younger companies are small companies (71.11% have
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Legitimacy Aver. Indic.
Competitiveness Aver.Indic.
Social Resp. Aver. Indic.
LegitimacyAver. Indic.
CompetitivenessAver. Indic.
Social Resp.Aver. Indic.
Disagree 12,44 6,47 3,48
Partially Disagree 26,37 17,41 25,37
Neither agree/NorDisagree
35,32 43,78 47,76
Partially Agree 23,38 27,86 19,4
Agree 2,49 4,48 3,98
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 34
less than 10 headcounts), thus the explanations related to size (see next subsection) are
also valid in this particular case. Third, the role of age on the social responsibility driver is not
clear.
Figure 5.3.5: Level of agreement to the conformity indicators by companies‘ age
Figure 5.3.6: Level of agreement to the competitiveness indicators by companies‘ age
d) The role of size on the pro-environmental drivers
Based on the literature review we hypothesized that small and large companies will report
high levels of agreement with the three pro-environmental drivers: conformity,
competitiveness, and social responsibility. Nevertheless, the results vary from one driver to
the other and are analyzed individually.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0-15 years
16-50 years
50 <
Age
Likert scale
Age0-15 years 16-50 years 50 <
Disagree 11,11 14,58 10
Partially Disagree 35,56 22,92 25
Neither agree/NorDisagree
35,56 36,46 33,33
Partially Agree 13,33 23,96 30
Agree 4,44 2,08 1,67
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0-15 years
16-50 years
50 <
Age
Likert scale
Age0-15 years 16-50 years 50 <
Disagree 8,89 6,25 5
Partially Disagree 17,78 18,75 15
Neither agree/NorDisagree
28,89 44,79 53,33
Partially Agree 37,78 27,08 21,67
Agree 6,67 3,12 5
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 35
For the conformity driver, only large companies reported high levels of agreement (Figure
5.3.7), partially supporting our hypothesis that argue that large and small companies will
report high levels of agreement. Potential explanations could be that larger companies‘
resource endowments are higher to implement pro-environmental initiatives (Udayasankar,
2008) making the relative cost of compliance smaller. Hence, complying with the regulations
is relatively less expensive than for smaller companies.
For the competitiveness driver, the predictions extracted from the literature review were
observed in the case study: large and small companies reported higher levels of agreement
(Figure 5.3.8). In the case of large companies the high level of agreement with the
competitiveness driver could be explained by the economies of scale (Robinson, 2013:51)
once the green-production is introduced and because they can reach a larger share of the
market (González-Benito and González-Benito, 2006). In the case of small companies, the
high level of agreement with the competitiveness drivers (in comparison with middle-size
companies – see later in this paragraph) might be associated with their ‗green culture‘
(Schick et al., 2001) and awareness (Zee et al., 2011). This baseline might be leading them
to be creative in their product development and market share competition. Thus, small
companies, in the need to differentiate themselves from the competitors, since they cannot
compete with economies of scale, benefit from the ‗going green‘ attitude (Clemens,
2009:495) with green products to serve an experienced demand. On the contrary, medium
size companies cannot access these economies of scale in introducing pro-environmental
plans, initiatives, and/or production lines like large companies, neither have they the
flexibility that small companies have to adapt and innovate in the competition for a larger
share of the market.
Similarly to the competitiveness driver, the social responsibility driver commanded more
agreement for large and small companies, as predicted by the literature. As in the previous
driver, the potential explanations for this behaviour vary according to their size (Figure
5.3.8). However, in both cases, a main explanatory factor is high visibility. In the case of
large companies, they are exposed to external pressure, not only from stakeholders
(González-Benito and González-Benito, 2006) but also from the government (Henriques and
Sadorsky, 1996). In the case of small companies, their visibility is local (Bowen, 2002; Chen
and Hambrick, 1995) due to their multi-local engagement, in terms of job creation and local
demand dependence.
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 36
Figure 5.3.7: Level of agreement to the conformity indicators by organizations‘ size
Figure 5.3.8: Level of agreement to the competitiveness indicators by organizations‘ size
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
< 10
10 to 29
50 to 249
250 <H
ead
cou
nts
- S
ize
Likert scale
Headcounts - Size< 10 10 to 29 50 to 249 250 <
Disagree 17,44 10,96 8,33 0
Partially Disagree 29,07 31,51 12,5 11,11
Neither agree/NorDisagree
36,05 35,62 45,83 16,67
Partially Agree 15,12 20,55 29,17 66,67
Agree 2,33 1,37 4,17 5,56
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
< 10
10 to 29
50 to 249
250 <
Hea
dco
un
ts -
Siz
e
Likert scale
Headcounts - Size< 10 10 to 29 50 to 249 250 <
Disagree 10,47 4,11 4,17 0
Partially Disagree 17,44 19,18 12,5 16,67
Neither agree/NorDisagree
37,21 50,68 50 38,89
Partially Agree 27,91 23,29 33,33 38,89
Agree 6,98 2,74 0 5,56
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 37
Figure 5.3.9: Level of agreement to the Social Responsibility indicators by organizations‘
size
e) The role of internal and external motivations on pro-environmental drivers
Respondents were asked to indicate how their pro-environmental behaviours were motivated
by three potential responses: (i) externally motivated, (ii) internally motivated, and (iii) not
motivated. Based on the literature review, a high level of external pro-environmental
motivations is positively associated the conformity driver, while a high level of internal pro-
environmental motivations is positively associated with the social responsibility driver.
Figure 5.3.10 shows the level of agreement of respondents with social/legal conformity by
level of external pro-environmental motivation. The relation between the two variables is not
clear. There is no clear distinction between those companies that expressed to be highly
externally motivated and those that reported low levels of external motivations. The reasons
behind this lack of relationship, as predicted in the case of the conformity driver and external
motivations, require further research. On the contrary, and as can be seen in Figure 5.3.11
the predicted positive relationship between internal motivation on social responsibility is
clearly observed in the sample. Thus, the hypothesis was supported.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
< 10
10 to 29
50 to 249
250 <
Hea
dco
un
ts -
Siz
e
Likert scale
Headcounts - Size< 10 10 to 29 50 to 249 250 <
Disagree 4,65 4,11 0 0
Partially Disagree 24,42 26,03 33,33 16,67
Neither agree/Nor Disagree 46,51 49,32 50 44,44
Partially Agree 22,09 17,81 12,5 22,22
Agree 2,33 2,74 4,17 16,67
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 38
Figure 5.3.10: Effect of external motivations on conformity
Figure 5.3.11: Effect of internal motivations on social responsibility
e) Comparison with results from the literature
This research aimed at understanding what drives the Belgian agri-food companies towards
sustainability. In our case study, the main pro-environmental driver is competitiveness,
followed by social/legal conformity, and finally social responsibility. The evidence obtained
partially supports Bansal and Roth‘s (2000:733) findings (conformity been the main driver,
followed by competitiveness and finally social responsibility) our initial hypothesis. These
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 71
Marion Courtois Bruxelles Environnement - IBGE / Leefmilieu Brussel – BIM ; Responsible for Service Green Economy ; Dpt. Transition de l'économie - Dir. Information, Coordination générale, Economie et ville durable - [email protected]
Cordelia Orfinger - (ECORES), Directrice - Politique des grandes villes, études, agenda 21, Bilan Carbone ®, Empreinte Ecologique - [email protected]
Pierre Stassart Agronome - chercheur enseignant Université de Liège - Responsable d‘Unité sociologie rurale - transition et du développement durable : action et connaissances, impact sur les trajectoires de développement et émergence de nouvelles formes d‘organisation - :[email protected]
Participated in some of our meetings : Claire Collin SPF SPSCAE /FOD VVVL - DG environnement/leefmilieu -
Attachée politique et monitoring - Attaché beleid en monitoring - [email protected]
Marion Courtois Bruxelles Environnement - IBGE / Leefmilieu Brussel – BIM – Economie et ville durable/Transition de l‘économie [email protected]
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 82
Seyfang, G. and Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development:
Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics 16(4): 584–603.
Shove, E. (2014). Putting practice into policy: reconfiguring questions of consumption and
climate change. Contemporary social science (9:4), 415-429
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: everyday life
and how it changes. SAGE publications.
Smith, A., and A. Stirling. (2010). The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable
socio-technical transitions. Ecology and Society 15: 11.
Sonnino, Roberta, and Terry Marsden. (2006). Beyond the divide: rethinking relationships
between alternative and conventional food networks in Europe. Journal of Economic
Geography 6: 181–199.
Soosay, C., Fearne, A. and Varsei, M. (2014). Extending Sustainable Practices Beyond
Organizations to Supply Chains. In: S. Sandhu, S. McKenzie and H. Harris, ed., Linking
Local and Global Sustainability. Springer Netherlands, pp.71-90.
Spaargaren, G., Oosterveer, P. and Loeber, A. (eds). (2012a). Food Practices in Transition.
Changing Food Consumption, Retail and Production in the Age of Reflexive Modernity (New
York and London: Routledge)
Spaargaren, G., Weenink, D., & Lamers, M. (2016). Practice Theory and Research:
Exploring the dynamics of social life. Routledge.
Storbacka, K., & Nenonen, S. (2011). Markets as configurations. European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 45 Issue: 1/2, 241-258.
Swinnen, Johan FM, and Thijs Vandemoortele. (2011). Trade and the political economy of
food standards. Journal of Agricultural Economics 62: 259–280.
TEEB (2015). TEEB for Agriculture & Food: an interim report. Geneva: The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity and United Nations Environment Programme
Turker, D. (2018). Global Challenges: Aligning Social Responsibility and Sustainable
Development Goals. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance, pp.161-176.
Valdés, R. and Foster, W. (2012). Net-Food Importing Developing Countries: Who they are,
and policy options for global price volatility. ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and
Sustainable Development.
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 83
Vanloqueren, Gaëtan, and Philippe V. Baret. (2008). Why are ecological, low-input, multi-
resistant wheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural ‗lock-in‘ case
study. Ecological Economics 66: 436–446.
Vermeulen, S.J., Campbell, B.M., and S.I. Ingram, J.S.I. (2012). Climate Change and Food
Systems", Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37: 195-222.
Visser, P., Krosnick, J. and Lavrakas, P. (2000). Survey Research. In: H. Reis and C. Judd,
ed., Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. New York:
Cambridge University Press, pp.223-252.
von Weltzien Høivik, H. and Shankar, D. (2011). How Can SMEs in a Cluster Respond to
Global Demands for Corporate Responsibility?. Journal of Business Ethics, [online] 101(2),
pp.175-195. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-010-0708-6
[Accessed 3 Feb. 2018].
Watson, M. (2012). How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised
transport system. Journal of Transport Geography 24, 488-496.
Watson, M. (2016). Placing power in practice theory. In A. Hui, T. Schatzki, E. Shove, &
(eds.). The Nexus of Practices: Connections, constellations and practitioners.
Welch, D., & Warde, A. (2015). Theories of practice and sustainable consumption. In L.
Reisch, & J. (. Thøgersen, Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption (pp. 84-
100). Edward Elgar Publishing
Williams, C.A. and Conley, J.M. (2005). An Emerging Third Way? The Erosion of the Anglo-
American Shareholder Value Construct. Cornell International L. J. 38: 493-551.
Wrigley, N., (1996). Sunk cost and corporate restructuring: British food retailing and property
crisis, in: Retailing, Consumption and Capital: Toward the New Retail Geography. Addison
Wesley Longman, Harlow, pp. 116–136.
Zadek, S., Raynard, P. and Oliveira, C. (2005). Responsible Competitiveness. Reshaping
Global Markets through Responsible Business Practices. Lisbon: Accountability in
association with Fundaçao Dom Cabral.
Zee, S., Folk, L. and Hartman, S. (2011). Exploring the Relationships between
Organizational Size and Market Focus and Commitment to the Green Movement and
Impacts of Organizational Culture: A Comparative Study of Jamaica and the United
States. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(22), pp.19-34.
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 84
10. ANNEXES
-- Workshop report
On the 3rd of May, 2018, the KU Leuven organized an event with stakeholders. The event
was organized in collaboration with Rikolto, an NGO based in Leuven that also deals with
the topic of bringing more local products into supermarkets. Some of the main questions that
were addressed during the conference were:
Are the marketing and sourcing practices of supermarkets compatible with practices in
short supply chain systems and local food systems?
What are the experiences of retailers, local organisations and local producers with the
sourcing and marketing of local goods in large-scale retail?
Is there a future for short food supply chains in supermarkets?
Can and should short supply chains be upscaled?
The conference brought together different experts, from supermarkets or otherwise involved
in the topic. The was organized in the Provinciehuis, in Leuven, from 8.00-12.00. The
program looked as follows:
8.00 Welcome with breakfast
8.40 Introduction Joris Aertsens (Rikolto) and Tjitske Anna Zwart (KU Leuven)
9.00 Testimonies supermarkets and local producers and organisations
1. Jill Soels, Carrefour
2. Niels van Couter, Colruyt Group
3. Daan Vanhorenbeek, Straffe Streek
4. Mario van Hellemont, Fruit producer
10.45-11.00 Break
11.00 Presentation Tjitske Anna Zwart – KU Leuven, sharing some of the
Food4Sustainability results
11.20 Open dialogue with Jill Soels (Carrefour), Niels van Couter (Colruyt Group),
Daan Vanhorenbeek (Straffe Streek), Mario van Hellemont (fruit producer),
Patrick Pasgang (Innovation support, Farmers Union)
12.00 Lunch
The conference attracted a wide range of participants. A participants list has been added
here under
The discussions mainly revolved around the difficulties of sourcing locally in supermarkets,
but also some strengths of marketing local food in large scale retail were revealed. There
was also a long discussion on the term local, arguing that it is not a black-an-white story, and
that it is important to think beyond assumptions on the (un)sustainability of local food, short
supply chains, and supermarkets. The retailers also explained their different approaches to
Project BR/121./A5/Food4sustainability
BRAIN-be (Belgian Research Action through Interdisciplinary Networks) 85
the sourcing and marketing of local food, while the fruit producer and the representative of
the local organization explained their experiences of working together with different retailers.
It became clear from the discussions that sourcing and marketing local food in supermarkets
is not easy, and that there is not a blueprint on how it should be done. However, the
participants discussed openly on the advantages, disadvantages and difficulties (one main
difficulty being transport) of offering local goods in large-scale retail and there was an open
exchange about experiences and projects and the different angles from producers, an
organization for local producers, and retailers provided a deep insight in these issues.
A more detailed report (in Dutch) on the conference can be found here: http://www.vilt.be/lokaal-is-zoveel-meer-dan-kilometers-alleen---lokaal-in-de-supermarkt-kan-dat-wel
Some of the presentations of the participants can be found here: https://www.biosfere.be/korte-keten-congres/
List of Participants
Last name Name Organisation
Adams Nadine Duroc De Riegel
Aertsens Joris Rikolto (Vredeseilanden)
Avermaete Tessa KU Leuven
Boeykens Lothar FairTradeGemeente
Boudt Ann Geïnteresseerde particulier
Boussauw Sebastiaan Hogeschool UCLL
De Bauw Michiel KU Leuven
de Crombrugghe Rosalie Delhaize
De Muynck Marjan VLAM
De Preter Sara VLAM
De Smet Eline Economische Raad voor Oost-Vlaanderen